Can a Search Engine Really Save the Planet?

I originally posted this as a MySpace bulletin. Rupert Murdoch (probably) doesn't own BlogSpot.com

ONCE YOU GO BLACK
by Jezy Gray

Pardoning the fact that everyone reading this is currently logged into a website owned by Rupert Murdoch, Fox News mogul whose cut-throat conservative ambition and Reaganbating economic ideology has propelled him into the ownership of more companies and subsidiaries of companies than either you or I could imagine, I'd like to think that we're all somewhat interested -- however passively -- in helping the environment.

That's why I was especially interested in Blackle.com.

Basically, it's Google, only black. Get it?

Thing is, the founders of Blackle claim [according to this report] that using the site as an alternative to Google would save 750 mega-watt hours a year. Apparently, different display colors consume different amounts of energy; so, it makes sense that a predominantly black display screen would use less energy than Google's white.

Of course, Google says this isn't true. And who wouldn't? It's not like Google can just go changing its trademark look, throwing into a panic the throngs of internet-savvy Americans on an e-quest for stills from R. Kelley's "Locked in the Closet, pt. II."

But, still, they seem to have a pretty good track record as far as progressive matters are concerned. According to The Wall Street Journal Online, sites like Blackle could actually increase the amount of energy used by computer monitors.

Then again, who is (as of this month) the proud new owner of The Wall Street Journal?

If you guessed Rupert Murdoch, give yourself five points.

However, Techlogg.com -- an independent site which chronicles technological news and breakthroughs -- seems to support these claims. They say that Blackle's figures, while not completely wrong, only apply to CRT monitors and not LCD monitors (of which 75% of the PC market is apparently composed.)

Now, I'm an English major. I can turn my computer on, and that's about it. I have no idea what CRT and LCD mean -- but if these percentages and their power testing results are correct, it seems to be something we might want to take into consideration.

Here is an article which factors in such variables as monitor type; and, while the results aren't quite as drastic as the initial figures on Blackle's website, it still reports a decrease in energy usage when switching from a white to black screen and claims that "in no case did any of the LCD monitors use more energy displaying black than white."

So, decide for yourselves.

As for me, I really don't know. It looks like too many hands are tied up with Google and it's WSJ-conducted research. Still, there seems to be some unbiased research validating their claims. Then there's some unbiased research debunking those claims.

Long story short: I wish I were better at science.